Making the Case for Divestment

Fortunately there is an increase in divesement efforts over the last years. There are more financial institutions now than last year that refuse to finance the nuclear weapon industry. With that, they diminish available investment capital and they promote the further stigmatisation of nuclear weapons. In some countries, government or the parliament has started to respond to divestment campaigns by discussing or even passing national legislation (Switzerland) or by setting new guidelines for national pension fund investments (as in Norway).

Download Chapter 1- Making the Case for Divestment

While it is unlikely that divestment by a single financial institution would create sufficient pressure on a company for it to end its involvement in nuclear weapons work, divestment by even a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company’s strategic direction. Exclusions by financial institutions do have a stigmatising effect and can convince directors to decide to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons contracts and expand into other areas.

This chapter reviews some of the reasons that financial institutions should develop comprehensive policies prohibiting any investment in nuclear weapon producers.

written by

Susi Snyder is the nuclear disarmament programme leader for PAX (formerly IKV Pax Christi) in the Netherlands. She is one of the primary authors of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 Don't Bank on the Bomb reports.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply